53 F
Chicago
Sunday, September 27, 2026
Home Blog Page 2457

Kamala Nomination Odds Soar After Reports Biden To Drop Out This Weekend

Kamala Nomination Odds Soar After Reports Biden To Drop Out This Weekend

Update (1130ET): It appears the situation is escalating fast in Democratic Party central this morning.

Axios reports that President Biden may decide to drop out of the presidential race as soon as this weekend, according to several top Democrats who believe the rising pressure will persuade the incumbent.

The 81-year-old president, now self-isolating with COVID, remains publicly dug in.

But privately he’s resigned to mounting pressure, bad polls, and untenable scrutiny making it impossible to continue his campaign, the Democrats tell us.

Others are reporting similar narratives and timelines building…

Furthermore, WaPo reports that he who pulls the real strings has weighed in…

“Obama has told allies in recent days that President Biden’s path to victory has greatly diminished and he thinks the president needs to seriously consider the viability of his candidacy, according to multiple people briefed on his thinking.”

The news prompted a surge in the odds of VP Kamala Harris getting the Democratic Party nomination (and collapse in Biden’s odds)…

Source: Bloomberg

This comes after reports of yet more gaffes by the aging Biden as he read aloud a note passed to him by a staffer during a virtual call with Democratic caucuses:

A staffer gave the 81-year-old president a note card with tips as he attempted to persuade members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Saturday that he was fit to serve and able to defeat former President Donald Trump on Election Day, the New York Times reported.

“Stay positive, you are sounding defensive,” Biden said on the call, seemingly reading directly from his staffer’s short missive.

You can’t make this up anymore.

Visualization of Democrats right now…

Meanwhile, Democrats have a new slogan…

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, calls for enfeebled President Biden to call off his re-election bid are not only growing more numerous, but also more powerful, as three top Democratic officials — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — have all reportedly told the president that his campaign is worse than hopeless. 

Suggesting a coordinated effort, news about three separate conversations that happened in the last week all dropped on Wednesday. The gap between the discussions and the reports is likely attributable to a desire to first give Biden a chance to bail out gracefully race before more pressure was added using leaks to the media.

Pelosi was said to have shared specific polling results indicating Biden has no path to victory, and that his continued presence atop the 2024 ticket could doom the Democratic Party’s chances of re-taking control of the House. According to CNN’s sources, Biden insisted he can win, saying he’s seen polls that give him hope that it’s a closer race than other say. Trying to bolster her case, Pelosi asked longtime Biden advisor Mike Donilon join the call to review the numbers. 

According to a Thursday report in Axios, top Democrats think Biden may decide to drop out of the presidential race as soon as this weekend.

The seeming next step for Pelosi — and the others — would be a public statement urging Biden to quit. A Pelosi ally told Politico that such a statement is a possibility, saying, “The speaker does not want to call on him to resign, but she will do everything in her power to make sure it happens.” 

News of Pelosi’s conversation came soon after word that Schumer had his own pointed conversation with Biden on Saturday. In a personal visit to Biden’s home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, Schumer was said to have bluntly told Biden that quitting the race would be best for America and the Democratic Party.

Like Pelosi, Schumer attempted to use polling to paint a picture for the defiant 81-year-old. While many national polls show a relatively narrow margin, what counts is the seven battleground states — and Trump is ahead in all of them. Even CNN’s John King recently showed why Trump could be on track for a landslide win. While details are thinner, ABC News reports that Jeffries also voiced the same concerns directly to Biden, politely nudging him to quit. 

All of this came on what was already a very rough day for Biden. After looking especially weak speaking from podiums on the campaign trail, the White House announced that Biden had tested positive for Covid-19 and would return to Delaware to isolate while still performing his presidential duties. Notably, as he boarded and exited Air Force One, he was maskless — something that contravenes a leftist core belief.

More notable than his bare face was his exceedingly frail appearance: 

Forget a second term — will Biden even finish his first? 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 18:22

The Next Four Months Will Be A Political War Without Limits

The Next Four Months Will Be A Political War Without Limits

Authored by David Samuels via UnHerd.com,

The 2024 political war is just beginning – The Democratic party has rigged the system

In a moment of raw personal courage at local fair-grounds in Butler, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump upended America’s presidential race by surviving an assassin’s bullet and then leaping to his feet and punching the air while proclaiming “USA!” and “Fight! Fight! Fight!” The resulting photographs may well change America and the world in ways no one seriously imagined even last week. 

Trump’s heroic response to an attempt on his life is a reminder of the extent to which, even in our technologically-mediated universe, the arts of narrative manipulation and framing only reach so far. At the core of every story is a human being whose character, as expressed through his actions, will be judged favourably or not by his or her fellow humans — such stories being especially important in societies where people elect their leaders, as shown by the rapturous reception that Trump received at the opening of the party’s National Convention in Milwaukee.

Trump’s instincts under fire prove him to possess the courage of a leader, however dubious other aspects of his character may be. It is fair to surmise that there isn’t a single head of state on earth, from Emmanuel Macron to Vladimir Putin to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who wouldn’t trade a large part of their kingdoms for a photograph of themselves standing bloodied and defiant beneath their national flag, having taken an assassin’s bullet and lived. That kind of political charisma is impossible to counterfeit.     

The images of the bloodied but defiant Trump also clearly underlined the contrast between a man who at 78 retains the physical vigour and presence of mind to take a bullet in front of a crowd, then get off the ground and shape a lasting image in the moment, and his doddering rival. Now, the sport of reading the Beltway tea leaves to determine which party figurehead might head the Democratic ticket in November has been replaced by inklings of real panic. 

Even worse for the Democrats is Trump’s ability to seize the most valuable ground in American politics: the future. If most peoples on earth live their collective national lives somewhere between the past and the present, Americans have always been different. Their idea of their past is generally shaky and non-binding. Instead, Americans exist between the present and the future, which is why they do things like invent digital technology and the iPhone and send men to the moon and Mars.

In the 24 hours following the assassination attempt, Trump seized the future with two bold moves. The first was attracting the public endorsement of Elon Musk, the technologist and builder who also happens to be the single wealthiest man in America. By uniting his charisma with Musk’s, Trump showed that he is not simply the backwards-looking angry white man candidate of 2016 looking to “Make America Great Again”. Rather, he is seeking to Make the American Future Great, which is a different, more inspiring, and potentially more unifying, sentiment. To underline the importance of the future, Trump then chose a Vice Presidential candidate, J.D. Vance, who is 40 years younger than he is, anointing a successor who can inherit his movement — and who could in theory serve two terms as president after Trump’s term is done.

It’s been a while since an American political candidate was able to capture the future. Trump’s first campaign was an angry, backwards-looking affair that targeted the country’s feckless elites; Biden never bothered with the future at all. Obama, who ran his first campaign on the basis of “hope”, by his second term was largely looking abroad to repair supposed past American crimes everywhere from Iran to Cuba. A heroic Trump who has energised his base and proven his personal courage while laying claim to the future is likely to have significant appeal to American voters.

Yet, the Democratic Party is a well-functioning, massively-funded, centrally-directed machine, capable — as it did in 2020 — of rewriting election laws to its advantage and banking millions of absentee ballots in advance of the election. By contrast, the Republican Party is a ramshackle, decentralised affair whose local worthies tend to be car dealers or pillow salesmen rather than corporate Ivy League types and lawyers. The structural imbalance between the parties has suggested that Democrats could run a cardboard cut-out of Taylor Swift for the presidency in 2024 and still win — especially given the immutable presence of the polarising Trump at the top of the Republican ticket. In fact, some polls showed Biden doing better against Trump after his doddering debate performance.

“The Democratic Party is a well-functioning, massively-funded, centrally-directed machine.”

Trump’s fairground heroics, therefore, hardly guarantee a win in November. To be clear, that’s because America is no longer home to a functioning two-party system, in which each of the two parties represent coalitions of regional interests and can count on the allegiance of local industries and opinion leaders. That’s a concept from political textbooks written 50 years ago. 

Since the Nineties, America has morphed from a sprawling, continent-sized democracy to a more European-style centralised federal state with a ruling class of coastal billionaires serviced by a unitary national elite. The Democratic Party is the home of the vast majority of America’s ruling oligarchy, and of the highly-paid, well-credentialed class of lawyers, consultants, researchers, media bosses, and others with degrees from a small number of elite universities who help the oligarchs do business, as well as the class of billionaire-funded NGO workers and “organisers” who harvest votes on behalf of the Party, which is both a self-enclosed life-world and a unitary socio-political machine. Unless you intend to confine your professional life to a few far-flung, largely rural states, being a Republican in such circles, or even being insufficiently “progressive”, is a sure-fire career-ender. 

By enforcing an ideological line that serves America’s billionaires in the name of the “oppressed”, and labelling discordant or disruptive views as either bigotry or Russian propaganda, the Democratic Party helps ease the glaring contradictions of the privileged classes it represents, while continuing on with the work of destroying the country’s middle-class and unionised labour markets and ensuring that the oligarchs don’t pay taxes. 

The structural importance of the Democratic Party to the new American system goes deeper, though. As the institution that mediates between the country’s oligarchy, its servant class elite, and masses of dispossessed voters, who are divided up into ever-multiplying numbers of identity groups and then set against each other, the party plays a key role in making the new American system run. It coordinates the activities of bureaucrats; the sprawling network of billionaire-funded NGOs that augments the power of the bureaucracy and the party alike; the media; and academia. The party also sets the policy and hiring agendas for America’s large corporations, to the point where, before the shooting, Trump had yet to attract the endorsement of the head of a single Fortune 500 company.

With all that socio-economic and bureaucratic power at their fingertips, it is perhaps no surprise that Democrats had long ago argued away the need to be polite to their increasingly powerless Republican opponents. Whether you were a corporate CEO, a university president, a tech baron, or head of a major American law firms, endorsing Trump meant more than social suicide; much lesser offences have reliably resulted in being aggressively targeted by NGO-led pressure campaigns NGO-led pressure campaigns and having protesters show up at your home, as well direct targeting by a federal bureaucracy that has increasingly abandoned the pose of social neutrality in favour of enforcing Party diktats on gender, race and nearly every other subject under the sun. Republicans, with the exception of a narrow group of fellow Beltway elitists, were racist, sexist, transphobic white supremacists and insurrectionists.

One of the chief targets of the Democratic Party’s society-wide enforcement machine has been Trump himself. Since Trump left office in 2020, he has been relentlessly targeted by a series of cases that have been aggressively prosecuted by both local and federal prosecutors despite a glaring paucity of evidence to support the idea that his actions were, in fact, crimes. Actually, the legal basis for these cases was dismissed as such by authorities as various as former Democratic New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and Democrat-appointed judges on the US Supreme Court. The recent federal case against Trump, alleging that he had committed a crime by retaining classified government documents, which resulted in a full-scale raid by armed FBI agents on his home in Florida, was thrown out yesterday by the presiding judge, Aileen Cannon, on the grounds that the appointment and funding of a special prosecutor in the case was itself “unlawful”. But the legality of the cases against Trump was never the point — which was to use the proceedings to prevent Trump from campaigning for months, while suggesting to voters that he was a criminal.

In turn, the legal onslaught against Trump and his supporters, which began even before he took office in January 2017, was only one part of a larger, incredibly well-funded, whole-of-society campaign that the Democrats launched against a man they have ceaselessly depicted not merely as the blustering, attention-seeking buffoon that he clearly sometimes is, but as a dark Hitlerian threat to democracy. In the wake of the attempted assassination, it is the other two major components of the elite anti-Trump campaign that appear most threatening to the American future.

In a pervasive information warfare campaign, Trump is depicted not as a political naif or a crude vulgarian, or as a deeply chaotic personality who can’t manage his way out of a paper bag, but as a sinister dictator-in-waiting, who must be stopped from attaining or exercising power at any price.

To support this dark view, Trump was placed at the centre of a whirl of conspiracy theories which were duly reported as front-page news on a daily basis for nearly a decade. Yet to date, there is no evidence that Vladimir Putin conspired with Trump to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful victory in 2016; Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate who blew a perfectly winnable election. No, Trump was not a paid Russian agent who communicated with Putin through a secret server in the basement of the Alpha Bank branch in Kiev. No, Trump didn’t have a secret deal with Russian businessmen to build hotels in Azerbaijan, which allowed Putin to control him. No, Trump was not taking money from Putin through intermediaries representing the Chabad Lubavitch stream of Judaism in Russia.

Every conspiracy theory was wilder than the last, and was treated like the scoop of the century for a day or a week before disappearing without a trace. Nor was there any form of correction or consequences for the reporters and editors involved. Instead, they rewarded themselves with Pulitzer prizes. The result has been the wholesale and tragic destruction of the entire credibility of the mainstream American press. 

Unsurprisingly, the decline in Americans being able to trust what they read, and the rise in apocalyptic political rhetoric, was matched by a corresponding rise in political violence. Trump himself was hardly innocent of involvement with political violence, even if he never exactly called the white supremacist rioters at Charlottesville “good people” — a charge that has been extensively debunked. Still, clashes between the Proud Boys (a Canadian-led Right-wing group) and other so-called patriot groups and Left-wing Antifa protesters were common in the first two years of Trump’s Presidency, lending credence to the idea that both parties were cultivating bully-boy militias. Yet, as Trump’s interest in the violent Right lessened after the first year or so of his Presidency, the Left’s reliance on violence as a political tool only increased.

Trump’s election was greeted by large-scale riots in every major American city, some of which went on for weeks. In June 2017, Steve Scalise, the Republican majority leader in the House, was nearly killed in a mass shooting by a Bernie Sanders supporter in what the Virginia State Attorney General concluded was “an act of terrorism… fuelled by rage against Republican legislators”. A year later, in June 2018, recently appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was targeted by a California man named Nicholas Roske, who arrived at Kavanaugh’s house with a rifle before giving himself up to police, and was then indicted for attempting to assassinate Kavanaugh. Roske told investigators that he was upset over the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade as well as the potential for Kavanaugh to help loosen gun laws in the country. 

The steady drum-beat of calls to public disorder from the Left during Trump’s Presidency reached its apogee in the run-up to the 2020 election, where rioters acting under various banners, from Black Lives Matter to Antifa, trashed the shopping districts of over 20 major American cities. In cities such as Portland, nightly battles between the police and Molotov-cocktail-wielding demonstrators went on for months, becoming a form of nightly street theatre in which young masked attackers threw bombs at police and federal buildings while teams of Democratic Party-aligned NGO lawyers stood ready to get offenders out of jail. As the damage mounted, and local panic increased, violent protesters in Democrat-led municipalities, most of whom turned out to be from upper middle-class Democratic families, seldom faced any consequences for their actions, with celebrities and others offering to bail them out. 

“The party’s message was that Donald Trump, not the rioters, was responsible for the scary scenes shown nightly on television.”

With the attempted assassination of Trump, the political and social stakes have once again been raised, in a system that seems ill-equipped to meet such a significant challenge. Any attempt at return to a procedural normalcy that was already badly weakened before Trump took office seems entirely beyond the capacity of America’s callow and insulated elites, which have lost themselves for nearly a decade in the fantasy cosplay of anti-Trump.

What we will witness over the next four months will be an election campaign pitting the hero figure of a bloodied but unbowed Trump, a man despised by nearly half the country, against the anti-democratic manoeuvrings of the country’s institutional elite, as exemplified by whichever hand-picked candidate Democratic Party insiders choose to field against him. The resulting campaign will be a game without limits, in which the level of violence seems likely to escalate — which will further diminish the interest or ability on either side to acknowledge a victory by the other. Americans are about to find out what it feels like to live in a country at war with itself — no matter who wins the presidency in November.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 18:10

Los Angeles Filming Bust Deepens With Sharp Decline In Reality TV

Los Angeles Filming Bust Deepens With Sharp Decline In Reality TV

FilmLA, the partner film office for the City and County of Los Angeles and other local jurisdictions, released a new report on Wednesday that detailed film production continued dropping in the second quarter due to an ongoing slowdown in content spending and Hollywood still reeling from post-strike paralysis.

Local on-location filming fell 12.4% year-over-year from April through June, reaching 5,749 shooting days in the quarter. There were declines in feature film production (-3.3% to 704 shooting days) and commercial production down 5% to 817 shooting days – both are minor declines compared with the crash in unscripted television production. 

“Filming of Reality TV fell -56.9 percent to 868 SD, taking the broader Television category (down -27.7 percent to 1,901 SD) lower with it,” FilmLA wrote in the report. 

Source: Bloomberg

Inversely, the report noted, “Elsewhere within the Television category, scripted content production increased substantially for the period, compared to the earliest strike-affected months of 2023. TV Drama production rose 98.3 percent to 714 SD, and TV Comedy production rose 103.6 percent to 171 SD, while filming for TV Pilots rose 54.5 percent to 17 SD.” 

Bloomberg was the first to cover FilmLA’s new report, indicating the slowdown in shooting days stems from “studios began cutting production and firing staff under pressure from investors to show a profit in streaming” in the second half of 2021. Compound this with the labor actions by workers in the Los Angeles entertainment industry last year that halted production. However, striking actors and writers have resolved their labor contracts with studios. 

Decreasing shooting days paint a grim picture for the industry, while the streaming downturn intensifies with Netflix cutting back on shows and hundreds of workers from Amazon Prime and MGM Studios being laid off earlier this year.

Bloomberg cited data from Creative Economy showing that LA’s entertainment industry workforce contracted by 16% last year. 

Most Americans couldn’t care less about the Hollywood film bust. Studios have been churning out “woke” content that many find unappealing. Additionally, the threat of AI continues to loom over the remaining workers.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 17:45

Secret Service ‘Appalled’ By Criticism Of Female Agents After Attempted Trump Assassination

Secret Service ‘Appalled’ By Criticism Of Female Agents After Attempted Trump Assassination

Instead of admitting to facilitating an assassination attempt on Donald Trump last Saturday, either through ‘malice or massive incompetence,’ the US Secret Service is ‘appalled’ that people are criticizing their decision to place short, incompetent women on Trump’s security detail.

Evan Vucci / AP

In a statement to NBC News, Secret Service spox Anthony Guglielmi lashed out at critics, saying “We stand united against any attempt to discredit our personnel and their invaluable contributions to our mission and are appalled by the disparaging and disgusting comments against any of our personnel.”

“It is an insult to the women of our agency to imply that they are unqualified based on gender. Such baseless assertions undermine the professionalism, dedication and expertise of our workforce,” he continued.

No, it’s based on height and ability to do their job.

“As an elite law enforcement agency, all of our agents and officers are highly trained and fully capable of performing our missions.“

Except, apparently not ‘fully capable’ of holstering a weapon…

The same officer struggled with her holster multiple times…

Even at the hospital…

So too short, and can’t operate a holster. And we’re the baddies for pointing it out.

Spot the difference: 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 15:45

China Had Persistent Access to US, Allied Networks For Years: White House Official

China Had Persistent Access to US, Allied Networks For Years: White House Official

Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Hackers in communist China maintained persistent access to U.S. and allied systems for multiple years, a Biden administration official has said.

An unnamed Chinese hacker uses a computer at an office in Dongguan, in Guangdong Province, China, on Aug. 4, 2020. (Nicolas Asfouri/AFP via Getty Images)

The cyber campaign appears to be part of a wider effort by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to prepare attacks on critical infrastructure, according to Israel Soong, director for East Asia and Pacific cyber policy at the National Security Council.

In the event of a conflict, China intended to use its cyber access to “cripple” critical systems, including power grids and communications platforms, Mr. Soong said during a July 16 speech at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.

Mr. Soong’s comments appeared to reference a malicious cyber campaign that was acknowledged by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in February. A CISA statement at the time said that CCP-backed hackers were “seeking to pre-position themselves on IT networks for disruptive or destructive cyberattacks against U.S. critical infrastructure.”

Intelligence leaders told Congress in February that the intrusion was detected in December 2023 and malware was removed from 600 government systems; however, the threat persisted in many infrastructure systems that are run by private companies.

Mr. Soong said many didn’t know that similar efforts had targeted numerous nations around the globe.

“What is public but is less well known is that the PRC has been doing the same propositioning to many other countries around the globe, including some who are our allies,” Mr. Soong said, using the acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

The Chinese regime could “persistently and aggressively maintain this cyber access for years on end,” he said.

The CCP invested heavily in cyber capabilities because it had developed a national strategy to “actively and intentionally dominate these areas in a strategic way,” Mr. Soong said.

“Beijing sees cyber and emerging technology as critical to the strategy to reshape the United States-led international order to be more favorable to the priorities of the Chinese Communist Party,” he said.

While CCP efforts to prepare for the sabotage of critical infrastructure are alarming, they are unlikely to be leveraged absent a major conflict between China and the United States, Mr. Soong said. That’s because an attack on U.S. infrastructure that results in American casualties would be considered an outright attack, he said.

The comments follow several reports earlier this year by Dutch intelligence agencies, which found that state-backed hackers in China had compromised more than 20,000 systems across dozens of Western governments, international organizations, and a large number of companies within the defense industry.

That campaign, dubbed COATHANGER, allowed China-based hackers to achieve “permanent access” to vital systems, according to a Dutch statement. Moreover, Dutch intelligence last month confirmed that “it is likely that the state actor still has access to systems of a significant number of victims at the moment.”

Thus, the hackers continue to maintain their illicit access to key government agencies in the West.

It’s currently unclear if COATHANGER was designed purely for espionage purposes or as part of the broader CCP effort to prepare critical systems in foreign nations for sabotage.

Speaking to Congress in May, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said that most China-based cyberattacks against the United States target health care and industrial control systems, as well as defense, energy, transportation, and food and water supplies.

U.S. and allied governments have faced difficulties effectively countering the Chinese regime’s massive cybercrime apparatus, partly because of a much smaller pool of leverageable cybersecurity professionals.

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in April that the CCP was “sparing no expense in its attempt to hack, lie, cheat, and steal its way to the top as a global superpower.”

Chinese state-backed hackers “outnumber FBI cyber personnel at least 50 to 1,” he said.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 15:25

CBDC: Creating Shortages With Full Shelves

CBDC: Creating Shortages With Full Shelves

Authored by Paul Cwik via The Mises Institute,

Of all the areas that economics students need to master, counterfactual reasoning is near the top of the list.

Counterfactual reasoning is outlining and comparing the differences and similarities between two alternatives. While everyone uses counterfactual reasoning, such as choosing what to have for lunch, economists look at deeper and more remote consequences. A typical example that students are asked to examine is the effects of price controls — what happens when a price ceiling is imposed below the equilibrium price versus what happens in a free market? The most obvious answer is that shortages develop.

People quickly buy as many items as possible while suppliers hesitate to restock.

Shortages are politically unpopular. A cause of permanent shortages is the price ceiling. Price ceilings are often imposed on markets because something even more unpopular is occurring — rapid price inflation. As prices jump up, people want to blame someone for their misfortune. Easy scapegoats are the shopkeepers who are asking for ever-higher prices. Politicians looking to score some quick political points advocate for price ceilings as the solution.

There is a clear causal chain of events.

  • Governments spend more than they tax.

  • As a result, governments turn to money creation to cover the deficit.

  • The new dollars are injected into the economy, which devalues the dollar and moves prices upward.

  • Politicians present price ceilings as the cure to this crisis, resulting in shortages and eventually a political backlash.

  • The politicians try to deflect the backlash and shift blame to anyone else.

But what if this could be avoided?

No, I am not suggesting transforming politicians into responsible representatives who “live within their means.”

That is clearly a myth.

I mean, “what if the backlash could be avoided because no shortages develop?” Some might think that the only way to achieve this is by suspending the laws of economics. Not so.

There is a potential solution that is nearly in our politicians’ grasp. The solution is called central bank digital currency.

Beyond the name, what is a CBDC, and is it much different from other digital currencies? Today, most of our currency is digital. Most people use cards or their phones (e-wallets) for most transactions. Only a small fraction (about 10%) of the total in circulation is physical ($2.2 billion in currency versus $20.8 billion in M2).

A major difference between CBDCs and today’s digital dollars is that CBDCs employ blockchain technology. Blockchain technology does for digital currency what the serial number does for the physical note. However, it also goes much further. Not only is each CBDC dollar identified, but its entire history of moving from one account to another is saved. Several other digital currencies, such as bitcoin, have the same tracking feature. The difference, however, is that the owners of the CBDC accounts are known by the central bank while the owners of the bitcoin accounts are anonymous to all. The central bank will know the history of each CBDC dollar and who owns which CBDC dollar at any moment because all the accounts will be centralized under its authority. Each person, nonprofit entity, corporation, etc., will be required to have an account at the central bank.

Blockchain technology used in this way gives the central bank access to the entire history of who owned each dollar, when it was exchanged, and with fairly good confidence, the reason for that transaction. In other words, under a CBDC system, the central bank will know when a particular CBDC dollar originated, see that it was transferred into this specific account owned by corporation X, know that it was transferred in the form of a salary to Mr. Y, and so on. While other blockchain-using cryptocurrencies work similarly, the difference is that the owners of the accounts and the reason for any transaction are unknown. Anonymous cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology as an open ledger that is more akin to everyone looking at the squares of a chessboard (different accounts) and seeing the movement of the pieces (transfers of funds) but not knowing who owns which square.

Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies are decentralized, independent and anonymous. Bitcoin accounts can receive bitcoin from anyone at any time, but funds can only be “pushed” out of the account by the owner. No one else, not even the federal government, can “pull” bitcoin from an account. In contrast, the central bank will control access to the CBDC dollars. They will have the power to regulate the flow of funds transferred between accounts.

While this level of control and surveillance by the central bank is ominous, it is essentially taking place today. What the CBDC would do is streamline the ability to investigate anyone’s affairs into a single organization, the central bank. Any amount of friction between snooping authorities is a good thing for privacy advocates, but the reality is that even though these functions are spread across several agencies, the U.S. government can monitor transactions, freeze accounts, directly garnish wages and so forth.

The unique threat found in the CBDC, which gives it a more sinister character, is that it is programmable.

A programmable currency gives the creator tremendous power.

Practically anything could be done with such power. Accounts could be frozen. Money could be subtracted from accounts. Transactions could be partially blocked or blocked in total. These accounts could be linked with other data, allowing algorithms to selectively manipulate purchases. It is these manipulations that give the central bank ultimate power.

For example, suppose that an economics professor’s health data shows that his body mass index is too high. The central bank’s algorithms may allow the purchase of fresh fruit but deny the purchase of an apple pie. Alternatively, the algorithm might look at the smog index for the city and thus limit the amount of gasoline purchased in that area for that week. Besides being able to micromanage everyone’s day-to-day transactions (which is already Orwellian), more powerful interventionist policies could be enacted.

Let us return to the earlier situation of politicians overspending. When the government covers a budget deficit through money creation, the money is injected into the economy at specific points. As the new money spreads through the economy, prices rise, but they do not rise simultaneously or uniformly. Some prices rise more than others. These economic distortions are called Cantillon effects. The rise in prices for many popular consumer goods will generate political backlash. Those in power will look for a way to deflect the blame and find a solution to show that they are “doing something.”

Obviously, the correct solution is to stop expanding the money supply, but since this choice would require fiscal discipline, the chances of this decision are remote. Throughout history, price controls have been repeatedly enacted to stop rising prices. Placing a price ceiling on certain items prevents the price from rising; however, it also creates unintended consequences. When the price is held below the equilibrium price, the quantity demanded is greater than the quantity supplied, and shortages emerge. Shortages are also unpopular. Often, politicians try to shift the blame to greedy corporations, but with a CBDC, the game can be changed.

What if instead of allowing shortages to emerge, the amount of spending on particular items could be throttled down? Just as easily as preventing a person from buying an apple pie, the central bank could prevent transactions of specific items that are in short supply. During the initial months of the covid scare, people panicked and stocked up on toilet paper. The resulting shortage persisted due to a breakdown in the supply chain. What if instead of letting panic buying persist, the central bank had the power to step in and throttle down how much toilet paper a household could have purchased?

Those who advocate for the CBDC will claim that this power to selectively throttle demand would be highly beneficial for all society. Maybe in this singular instance of a toilet paper shortage, they might be right. However, we live in a dynamic world and not one-time happenings. The history of the Soviet Union showed that there were specific stores that were full while others were empty. The special stores were full because they restricted access to “the right people” and to those with hard currencies.

Similarly, the CBDC also restricts buyers. The restrictions might be as severe as only allowing party members in good standing to make purchases, or it might be a kinder, gentler repression such as limiting how much a household can buy per month (rationing). Despite the injection of new money into the system, the result is that prices will be held down. Price indexes will not record significant increases, and price inflation will be “solved.” And while the shelves will be full, very few people will be able to complete their desired purchases. Their purchases will be denied, and the consumers will be without recourse.

We will have shortages with full shelves. The politicians will be able to continue deficit spending and to create money to cover their profligacy. The buying public will be angry and frustrated but will not know where to focus their anger. No immediate solution will be recognizable because it requires thinking through several layers of economic theory. No election slogan will sum it up, not even “end the Fed.”

But wait, there’s more! As Ludwig von Mises demonstrates in “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism” and “A Critique of Interventionism,” interventionism is not a stable solution. Mises presents the example of a milk market where a price ceiling is imposed. The price ceiling leads to a milk shortage. The politician asks why the farmer has reduced the amount he produces to which the farmer replies that he has cut production because his costs are too high. The politician “fixes” the farmer’s problem by placing a price ceiling on a major cost — animal feed. However, this price ceiling leads to a shortage of feed. When the feed producer is asked why he has reduced his output, he argues that he must because the price of fertilizer and pesticides are too high. The process repeats.

Each intervention produces undesirable secondary consequences. Instead of admitting an error and reversing the policy, these effects propel the politicians to enact new interventions to solve these new problems. Interventionism leads to the expansion of state power and control over different sectors of the economy. The enactment of a CBDC will, too, create unintended consequences. The effects of the various algorithms will spur more interventions until eventually the market is completely dominated by the government.

The best policy is not to start down this path. The best policy is to recognize that the so-called cure is worse than the disease. Improving our counterfactual reasoning skills are necessary to protect markets from governmental encroachment. Each citizen must become a student of economics and explain the alternate paths that are set before us. We mustn’t waste time because we do not have a moment to spare. The technology to implement a CBDC exists today.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 14:45

Leading ‘Trump Russia Hoax’ Propagandist’s Wife Indicted As Foreign Spy

Leading ‘Trump Russia Hoax’ Propagandist’s Wife Indicted As Foreign Spy

Max Boot – a big fan of ‘forever wars‘ who laundered Trump-Russia conspiracy theories through the Washington Post – is married to a South Korean spy who used to work for the CIA, and is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (now on ‘administrative leave) – according to a new indictment revealed on Wednesday.

Boot’s wife, Sue Mi Terry, 54, a native of Seoul living in Manhattan, used her position as a foreign policy expert to trade access to top US officials in exchange for luxury goods and ‘high-end sushi dinners,’ according to the indictment.

Terry allegedly began spying for South Korea in October 2013, five years after she left the CIA, and three years before Boot began calling Donald Trump a Russian asset.

Terry is accused of having “disclosed sensitive US government information to South Korean intelligence and used her position to influence US policy in favor of South Korea” over the course of a decade, in exchange for “money and luxury gifts,” FBI Acting Assistant Director in Charge Christie M. Curtis said in a statement.

From 2001-2011, Terry served in a range of US government positions – including as a CIA analyst, as well as Director for Korea, Japan, and Oceanic Affairs for the White House National Security Council, the Post reports.

According to the indictment, a South Korean spy bought Terry a Dolce & Gabbana coat from a Chevy Chase, Maryland store in November of 2019 – which she returned days later for a $4,100 Christian Dior coat.

The spies also funneled over $37,000 to a public policy program on Korean affairs run by Terry – who never registered as a foreign agent with the DOJ, and had been warned by the FBI in 2014 that she could be a target for illegal foreign influence.

Meanwhile, she was passing intelligence to her South Korean handler according to the indictment:

For instance, Terry delivered handwritten notes about a private North Korea-related June 2022 meeting with the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, to her South Korean intelligence handler who picked her up in a car minutes later, according to the indictment unsealed Tuesday.

Weeks after that, Terry hosted a happy hour – at her handlers’ behest – where she allowed the South Korean spy to mingle with congressional staffers while posing as a diplomat, the filing charges. –NY Post

The indictment also details how Terry was “visibly nervous” in a voluntary interview with the feds, and eventually admitted to having met with her South Korean handler after initially claiming she did not know his name. 

Terry was released after posting a $500,000 bond during her initial appearance in Manhattan federal court on Tuesday, and faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

What’s more, Boot and Terry co-published South Korean propaganda in the Washington Post…

Boot also had the back of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who allegedly banged a Chinese spy.

Amazing…

 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 14:27

China’s Third Plenum Concludes: Here Are The Main Takeaways As China Slides Into “History’s Garbage Time”

China’s Third Plenum Concludes: Here Are The Main Takeaways As China Slides Into “History’s Garbage Time”

While a far cry from the market-moving event it used to be just a few years ago (when it promised to unleash a firehose of inflationary, stimulative liquidity) the third Chinese plenum – which sets out the country’s economic priorities for the next five years – concluded on Thursday and delivered some newsworthy developments, most notably that President Xi Jinping vowed to “deepen reform” and “resolve” the risks of mounting real estate and local government debt as well as make “high-quality development” the guiding force of the world’s No. 2 economy, showing few initial signs that the top leadership is preparing to unleash major steps to boost demand or arrest the property slump… which is precisely why the market – long ago addicted to China’s fiscal firehose – completely ignored it.

As Bloomberg reports, the ruling Communist Party signaled China will stay on course with Xi’s plan to use advanced manufacturing to generate growth, in a vaguely worded statement Thursday marking the close of a twice-decade conclave that’s often heralded major policy shifts but not this time. And as Bloomberg notes, the focus on the factory engine could increase trade tensions, with a surge in Chinese exports already prompting fresh tariffs from the US and the European Union.

The recommendations set in motion Xi’s ambitions of a technologically sovereign country with a strong socialist market economy, though it did little to address the low consumer spending that economists hoped could boost China’s slowing economy.

“High-quality development is the top mission of building a modern socialist country,” the official Xinhua News Agency said after the four-day meeting in Beijing. That opaque and vague slogan is interpreted to emphasize the quality of economic growth over its absolute pace and to warn that a flood of stimulus is not coming. It centers on Xi’s ambitions to move up the value chain through tech innovation and become more resilient against US trade curbs.

While there were no major surprises, here are the key takeaways:

As per Xinhua the Third Plenum Communique adopted resolution on further deepening reform 
comprehensively along the following lines

Economic Stimulus:

  • “It is necessary to guide reform with the new development concept, based on the new development stage, deepen supply-side structural reform, improve the incentive and constraint mechanism to promote high-quality development, and create new momentum and new advantages for development.”
  • “We must implement macroeconomic policies in accordance with the decisions and arrangements of the Party Central Committee on economic work, actively expand domestic demand, develop new quality productivity in accordance with local conditions, accelerate the cultivation of new foreign trade momentum, solidly promote green and low-carbon development, effectively protect and improve people’s livelihood, and consolidate and expand the results of poverty alleviation.”
  • “We must persist in doing our best and acting within our means, improve the basic public service system, strengthen the construction of inclusive, basic and basic livelihood, solve the most direct and practical interests that the people are most concerned about, and continuously meet the people’s yearning for a better life.”
  • “It is necessary to improve the macroeconomic regulation system, coordinate and promote reforms in key areas such as finance and taxation, and enhance the consistency of macroeconomic policy orientation.”

National Security:

  • “The plenary session pointed out that national security is an important foundation for the steady and long-term development of China’s modernization. It is necessary to fully implement the overall national security concept, improve the system and mechanism for maintaining national security, achieve a benign interaction between high- quality development and high-level security, and effectively ensure the long-term stability of the country.”
  • “It is necessary to improve the national security system, improve the public security governance mechanism, improve the social governance system, and improve the foreign-related national security mechanism.”
  • “The plenary session pointed out that the modernization of national defense and the army is an important part of China’s modernization. We must uphold the absolute leadership of the Party over the people’s army, implement the strategy of reform and strengthening the army in depth, and provide a strong guarantee for achieving the goal of the centenary of the founding of the army as scheduled and basically realizing the modernization of national defense and the army.”

Indirect Impact on Housing Market:

  • “The plenary session proposed that the integrated development of urban and rural areas is an inevitable requirement for China’s modernization. It is necessary to coordinate new industrialization, new urbanization and comprehensive rural revitalization, comprehensively improve the integration level of urban and rural planning, construction and governance, promote equal exchange and two-way flow of urban and rural factors, narrow the gap between urban and rural areas, and promote the common prosperity and development of urban and rural areas.”
  • “It is necessary to improve the system and mechanism for promoting new urbanization, consolidate and improve the basic rural management system, improve the support system for strengthening, benefiting and enriching farmers, and deepen land system reform.”

Long-Term Goals and Reforms:

  • “By 2035, a high-level socialist market economic system will be fully established.”
  • “By 2029, the 80th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the reform tasks proposed in this decision will be completed.”
  • “We must consciously put reform in a more prominent position and further comprehensively deepen reform around promoting Chinese-style modernization.”

“There remains a strong emphasis on high-quality growth. This means the tolerance for a period of modestly slower growth remains in place,” said Becky Liu, head of China macro strategy at Standard Chartered. “And the bar for strong short-term economic stimulus remains very high.”

The lack of any tantible results may eventually fade away because the ruling party – technically the only party – normally issues a more detailed report several days after concluding the Third Plenum. Specific policies taking cues from the confab are more likely to come from a sit-down of China’s 24-man Politburo later this month, which typically focuses on economic issues for the year.

Chinese officials are facing calls to rebalance their economy, as consumer spending slows while exports surge and policy focuses on new green sectors such as electric cars and solar panels. Second-quarter data undershot expectations this week, after retail sales in June rose at the slowest pace since 2022 piling pressure on Beijing to do more to stimulate the consumer.

Officials put “actively expanding domestic demand” on their to-do list but only as a short-term task in the communique. Despite that, authorities reaffirmed their determination to hitting this year’s social and economic goals, which include an annual growth target of about 5%.

Good luck achieving that without injecting several trillion first… and once Beijing admits there is no way around this simple math, watch as everything that is not nailed down explode higher in price and wrecks the upcoming Fed rate-cutting cycle, even though Xi has said GDP should no longer be “the sole yardstick of success for development” for obvious reasons: it now take far more than 1 yuan in new debt to grow GDP by 1 yuan.

Other priorities include creating an improved system for setting macroeconomic policies — potentially a reference to avoiding abrupt crackdowns such as those that rocked the education and tech sectors years ago and dented investor confidence.

This meeting, which was delayed from last year, comes as Chinese policymakers struggle to arrest a crisis in the property market, where the citizens store much of their wealth. Falling house prices and a weak job market have sent China into its longest deflationary streak since 1999.

That’s causing a growing sense of malaise, with some citizens branding the post-pandemic era “history’s garbage time” — a phrase referring to final moments of a sports game when a losing team has no chance of making a comeback.

Officials vowed to strengthen the guidance of public opinion and “effectively maintain social stability,” without elaborating. “We must enhance cultural confidence, develop advanced socialist culture,” the party pledged, “and build a more effective international communication system.”

The real estate sector, which at one point accounted for a quarter of China’s gross domestic product, was mentioned just once in the nearly 4,000-word announcement. It was stated only in the context of managing risk, a potential signal no dramatic stimulus measures are forthcoming.

Beijing introduced a broad real estate policy package in May, which centered on relaxing mortgage rules and encouraging local governments to buy unsold homes. It has, so far, had a modest impact.

The government appeared to skip a once-popular phrase that the market should play a “decisive role,” which was used as recently as the last leadership reshuffle in 2022. The ruling party instead said officials should be able to both “let it go” and “control it.” Authorities have signaled a new willingness to control markets in recent months, with the central bank readying a multi-billion yuan pool of bonds to cool a record-breaking rally.

“Measures look to be more focused on the supply side rather than the demand side,” said Bruce Pang, chief economist for Greater China at Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. “That said, the mentioning of urban-rural integration, people’s well-being and fiscal and taxation reform should help improving domestic demand.”

The scope of the communique — spanning everything from economic to political and social issues — reflected the complex challenges facing China, said Alfredo Montufar-Helu, head of the China Center at The Conference Board.

“But in trying to tackle each and every one of these challenges, it unfortunately reads as lacking the focus the market expected,” he added, citing “structural issues that are dragging down consumer confidence and impeding China’s transition to a more sustainable development model.”

Military modernization was named a key priority in the document, as the party vowed to improve its social governance operations, as well as national and foreign-related security mechanisms.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 14:25

Federal Prosecutors Begin Dropping Jan. 6 Obstruction Charges After Supreme Court Ruling

Federal Prosecutors Begin Dropping Jan. 6 Obstruction Charges After Supreme Court Ruling

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. prosecutors have started dropping obstruction charges against defendants alleged to have been involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, in the wake of a crucial Supreme Court decision.

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks at the Department of Justice in Washington, on Aug. 11, 2023. (Stephanie Scarbrough/AP Photo)

Government prosecutors informed defendants and the judge overseeing the defendants’ cases that it will drop charges brought under federal law Section 1512(c)(2) in light of the ruling from the nation’s top court, according to a July 15 filing.

“This decision was made in order to avoid disruption to the trial schedule for a five-defendant case, and the dismissal eliminates the need for additional litigation as to the sufficiency of the Section 1512 charge as applied to these defendants,” the prosecutors told the judge.

Prosecutors in a separate Jan. 6 case said on July 11 that they were dropping the same obstruction charge against defendant Mark Sahady after the judge ordered the government to participate in a briefing on the effects of the Supreme Court decision on his case and rejected a motion from the government for more time to assess the ruling’s impact.

“Given the length of time this case has been pending, the specific facts of this case, the other relevant charges, the current trial date, and the need to promote judicial economy and efficiency, the United States requests that Count One be dismissed without prejudice in the interests of justice and that trial proceed on the remaining counts on August 12, 2024,” prosecutors said.

Defendants in other cases, and multiple people who have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing, have asked judges to consider the effect of the ruling. Some of the judges have ordered prosecutors to file briefs presenting their positions on what impact the ruling has on charges against the defendants.

Prosecutors in at least one case have resisted dropping an obstruction charge brought under Section 1512, saying the ruling doesn’t bar them from applying the charge to the Jan. 6 defendants.

The majority of Supreme Court justices said in the ruling, released June 28, that federal prosecutors went overboard in their application of Section 1512, which was approved by Congress in the aftermath of the Enron scandal and bars altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing records.

The law also says that a person who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Prosecutors said that the latter part of the law cover various crimes carried out by Jan. 6 defendants, a view rejected by the court’s majority.

“It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away in the second part of the third subsection of Section 1512 a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Proving a violation of the law requires prosecutors to show that a defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability of records or documents used in an official proceeding, according to the ruling, which was made in favor of defendant Joseph Fischer.

Justices vacated an opinion from the federal appeals court in Washington that had ruled in favor of the government and returned the case to the court for proceedings consistent with the new ruling.

Some 1,472 people have been charged in relation to the Capitol breach. Of the 259 defendants charged under Section 1512, 133 have already been convicted and sentenced. All of those individuals were charged with at least one other crime.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said after the Supreme Court decision was handed down that he was disappointed because it “limits an important federal statute.”

He added that the Department of Justice “will take appropriate steps to comply with the court’s ruling.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 12:45

Tucker Carlson: “Every Bad Person I’ve Ever Met In A Lifetime In Washington Was Aligned Against J.D. Vance”

Tucker Carlson: “Every Bad Person I’ve Ever Met In A Lifetime In Washington Was Aligned Against J.D. Vance”

Tucker Carlson, speaking yesterday at the Heritage Foundation’s “Policy Fest” at the Republican National Committee in Milwaukee, made the case for U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), who was announced yesterday as former President Donald Trump’s running mate:

So now J. D. Vance is the VP pick, and I think every person who pays close attention has got to be thrilled by that.  

And if you don’t know much about J. D. Vance, I’m not even going to make a case for J. D. Vance. I’m going to tell you what I just saw, which is that every bad person I’ve ever met in a lifetime in Washington was aligned against J.D. Vance.  

And I do think the negative case is often more powerful,  because I know of myself, I do not think I’m a particularly good person. I have strong reasons for feeling that way.  I don’t always think that my side is right. I know for a fact I have been wrong many, many times. And I hope to correct and be honest about my error.

So it’s not like I think that, you know, always, you know, God’s always on my side. Sometimes I’m not on God’s side. But I definitely know who’s representing the other side. It’s a lot easier to tell who the people who are only in it because they like, I don’t know, killing other people in pointless wars.

Like, I know who those people are, and their odor is so powerful that I can smell one when he walks in the room.  And every single one of those people in a line that would extend from Milwaukee to Chicago was lined up over the last week to knife J. D. Vance.

Not on personal grounds, I mean, he’s a perfectly nice guy, he’s like one of the only members of the Senate with a happy marriage. True.  

But because they thought he would be harder to manipulate and slightly less enthusiastic about killing people. That’s it.  That he would be an impediment to their exercising power. And boy, they went after him in a way I’ve just kind of never seen. Which I think happens every day in Washington. I just don’t have advantage on it because I’m far, far away and grateful to be.

Watch the full address here:

Via American Greatness,

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/18/2024 – 12:25